Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Externment Order Cannot Be Recorded On The Basis Of A Crime In Which Accused Was Acquitted: Bombay HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Feb 14, 23, 10:43, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
1 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5750
Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar v. Deputy Police Commissioner that the subjective satisfaction for passing an externment order cannot be recorded on the basis of a crime in which the accused was acquitted.


While ruling on a very significant legal topic pertaining to the accused, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar v. Deputy Police Commissioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 908 of 2022 minced just no words to hold unequivocally that the subjective satisfaction for passing an externment order cannot be recorded on the basis of a crime in which the accused was acquitted. It must be mentioned here that the writ petition had challenged the order that was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amaravati directing his externment from the Amaravati city as well as Amaravati district. It must be also mentioned here that the High Court further noted that no reason has been given for ordering externment for two years from the entire Amaravati District even though all the registered crimes were within the jurisdiction of Frezapura Police Station in Amaravati city.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice GA Sanap sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati Zone-1 dated 5th April, 2022, whereby he was ordered to be externed from the Amravati City as well as Amravati District and also the order dated 28th September, 2022 passed by the Appellate Authority-Respondent No.3 confirming the order of externment passed by the respondent No.1 dated 5th April, 2022.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that:
It is to be noted that in order to justify the order under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act of 1951, reliance was placed on four crimes under the Prohibition Act. It is true that the cases for commission of those offences are pending against the petitioner in the Court of Law. In the case of Dhananjay Manohar Sapkal (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the offences registered under the Prohibition Act or under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (for short the Gambling Act) cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of passing an externment order. In this case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the provisions of Section 56(1) Clauses (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951 and held that the offences under the Prohibition Act or the Gambling Act would fall outside the scope of the offences and activities contemplated under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56(1) of the Act of 1951. It is to be noted that the offences contemplated under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act of 1951 are relating to coin and government stamps, offences affecting the human body and the offences against the property. It is pertinent to note that the repetitive indulgence in the offences relating to the human body by and large have a tendency to affect the public peace and tranquility. The above offences apart from resulting in breach of peace and tranquility have a tendency to harm the society at large. In my view, therefore, this aspect needs to be borne in mind while appreciating the submissions made by the learned advocates.

As we see, the Bench hastens to add in para 8 stating that:
Perusal of Section 56(1) Clauses (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951 would show that the subjective satisfaction for passing externment order cannot be recorded on the basis of the offences registered under the Prohibition Act. Therefore, on this ground, the dent has been caused to the so-called subjective satisfaction, sought to be relied upon by the respondents to substantiate the order.

It is worth noting that the Bench then lays bare in para 9 noting that:
The next important point is with regard to the consideration of the crimes in which the petitioner was acquitted to record the subjective satisfaction. In order to justify the reliance on these crimes, the learned APP submitted that the petitioner did not file the reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, the respondent No.1 had no reason to know that he was acquitted in those crimes. In my view, this submission is self-contradictory to the subjective satisfaction, recorded in the externment order. This submission would indicate that the respondent No.1 was not supposed to make an inquiry whether the cases are pending or the cases have been disposed of. It is to be noted that in all the crimes, the petitioner was released on bail. The respondent No.1 was, therefore, required to make a thorough inquiry and that too by perusing the bail orders in those matters, to come to a definite conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are in all respect covered by Section 56(1)(b). The reliance upon the crimes in which the petitioner was acquitted would indicate that the inquiry was flawed. It needs to be emphasized that the subjective satisfaction for passing such an order must be arrived at on the basis of the objective material. In the present case, the material, which could not have been taken into consideration at all, has been stated to be objective material to arrive at subjective satisfaction. On this ground also the satisfaction recorded is substantially dented.

Most forthrightly, the Bench underscores in para 10 specifying that:
After excluding the four crimes in which he was acquitted as well as the four crimes which are under the Prohibition Act, the only one crime at Serial No.5 registered at Frezarpura Police Station being Crime No.156/2017 was available for being considered by the respondent No.1 to form an opinion to proceed further against the petitioner under Section 56 of the Act of 1951. It is to be noted that this crime is also stale crime. The same could not have been taken into consideration at all. The show cause notice is dated 4th March, 2022. The crime at Serial No.5 was registered in the year 2017. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent No.1 took into consideration a crime, which was registered five years prior to the issuance of notice. The sole crime apart from being a stale crime for this purpose, would also not be sufficient to establish the live link for passing the impugned order. The live link in this case was, therefore, completely snapped. In my view, therefore, based on this crime alone, the order of externment was not at all justified.

Most conspicuously, the Bench then points out aptly in para 11 that:
Perusal of the show cause notice as well as the order passed by the respondent No.1 would indicate that the chapter cases under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1971 were initiated against him. The first case is bearing No.04/2020 and the second case is bearing No.54/2021. At the conclusion of such proceeding, the party concerned is called upon by the Executive Magistrate to execute a bond for good behaviour. The duration of such a bond is normally for a period of six months. The show cause notice as well as the order of externment is silent with regard to the execution of bond for good behaviour. The show cause notice as well as the order is silent on the point whether there was breach of the undertaking and conditions of the bond executed in those proceedings. The bond is executed in the proceeding, which is of preventive nature. This aspect has not been considered and appropriately dealt with by respondent Nos.1 and 3.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench enunciates in para 12 that:
The next important aspect is with regard to the reliance placed on the statements of the confidential witnesses. The statement of the first confidential witness was recorded on 10th February, 2022 and the statement of the second witness was recorded on 11th February, 2022. The statements were recorded by the Senior Police Inspector, Frezarpura, Amravati City. The statements were, therefore, admittedly not recorded by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 was, therefore, required to verify those statements. Perusal of the statements would show that at the bottom of the statements, there is endorsement verified. The stamp below the signature clearly spells out that those statements were not verified by the respondent No.1, but those statements were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Even if it is assumed that there was verification, the cryptic manner of the endorsement to indicate the verification, creates a doubt about actual verification. The statements were verified on 28th February, 2022. The notice in question was issued on 4th March, 2022. There is no reference of this in-camera statements of the confidential witnesses in the notice.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 13 that:
Perusal of the externment order would show that the reliance has been placed on these statements to form a subjective satisfaction. The respondent No.1, who has passed the externment order, has not stated in his order that he had personally verified those statements by securing the presence of the witnesses. In my view, this exercise was required to be scrupulously conducted. The statements have been relied upon to form the subjective satisfaction. It, therefore, goes without saying that the statements of the confidential witnesses without verification by the respondent No.1 personally, were made a part of record to pass an externment order. In my view, this is one more ground to cause serious dent to the subjective satisfaction recorded in the impugned order.

Most significantly, the Bench minces just no words to hold in para 14 that:
It is to be noted that this order passed by the respondent No.1 and confirmed by the respondent No.3 suffers from the virus of excessiveness. The order of externment apart from making inroads on the personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India, makes the said person live separate from his family members. Similarly, the externment order can deprive the said person of his livelihood. In the given case, depending upon the financial position of the person, it can make the dependents of the said person to starve. Therefore, in order to justify the externment for a maximum period of two years, the Authority is required to consider the objective material to record subjective satisfaction on all points. In this case, I am constrained to observe that the order passed by the respondent No.1 is woefully silent on all these points. The respondent No.1 has not recorded the reasons to order the externment of the petitioner for a period of two years and that too from the entire Amravati District. It is seen on perusal of the notice and order that all the crimes committed by the petitioner were within the jurisdiction of Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati City.

More to the point, the Bench then far most significantly mandates in para 15 holding that:
In my considered opinion, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.1 and confirmed by the respondent No.3 suffers from the virus of excessiveness. The law laid down on the point in the cases of Shaikh Mukhtyar S/o Mustafa Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2017 ALL.M.R. (Cri.) 268 and Bhagwat Dadasaheb Landge and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2020(5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 546], would, therefore, equally apply in this case. It is to be noted that the excessive nature of the order on both the counts is one of the factors, which would weigh in favour of the petitioner. The order of externment, making a direct inroads on the fundamental right of movement, must, therefore, pass all the legal tests. In this case, the order passed by the respondent No.1 and confirmed by the respondent No.3 do not pass the said test. It is to be noted that the respondent No.3 despite being confronted with the factual position vis-a-vis the acquittal of the petitioner in four crimes and his involvement in four crimes under the Prohibition Act, confirmed the said order. Perusal of the order of the respondent No.3 would show that the respondent No.3 has recorded factual submissions, but failed to sufficiently deal with the same. Therefore, in my view, this order is not sustainable.

As a corollary, we thus see that the Bench enunciates in para 16 that, Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5th April, 2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1 Amravati City externing the petitioner from Amravati District for a period of two years and the order dated 28th September, 2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Divisional Commissioner of Amravati confirming the said order of externment are quashed and set aside.

Finally, the Bench concludes by directing in para 17 that:
Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition is disposed of.

In sum, we thus see that the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has made it indubitably clear that externment order cannot be recorded on the basis of a crime in which accused was acquitted. Of course, it certainly merits no reiteration that all the courts must definitely pay heed to what the Bench has laid down in this leading case! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top